Is "unicorns" better than "unicorn" at Deut. 33:17?

[Logos1560]

Onlyism is for the weak, uninitiated, and manipulators who are basically afraid. They generally construct scaffolding of straw removing the authority of God to preserve and giving over to excess of personal authority.

Advocates of a KJV-only theory seem to be unaware of the extreme arrogance in their own human reasoning. KJV-only advocates do not seem to see how some of their assertions conflict with the NT doctrine of the priesthood of believers and with the doctrine of soul liberty.

 

[Logos1560]

I do not agree with you that we should accept translators agreements of what the truth is because their translations are so different.
.

Where did I supposedly say what you suggest? Are you again putting words in my mouth that I did not say?

The actual Bible translations of which the KJV was a revision and the Bible translations in other languages which they consulted also have textual differences and have many differences in translation.

There were also differences in the actual varying original-language texts used and consulted by the KJV translators.

Perhaps there may be the same problems with your view as you assume about the views of others.

 

[Logos1560]

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English translations, asserted: “The assumption that we may apply the supposed promises to one Bible, and not to another, is absolutely groundless. No promise of Scripture is dated, and if any promise of Scripture secures the infallible working of the Holy Ghost for the production of a perfect translation, that promise must be as applicable to one version as to another” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, pp. 196-197).

Glenn Conjurske wrote: “The fact is, the agreement is not perfect, either between the manuscripts and the printed Textus Receptus, or between the manuscripts themselves, nor between the various printed editions of the Textus Receptus, nor between the King James Version and the manuscripts, nor between the King James Version and any edition of the Textus Receptus” (Olde Paths, Feb., 1994, pp. 42-43).

Glenn Conjurske wrote: “If God has actually promised to preserve his word in perfect purity, 1611 is much too late to begin keeping that promise” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, p. 198).

 

[Yeshua1]

I recall that the early pilgrims and puritans did not accept the KJV. They did not consider it as worthy of their agreement.

They did seem to favor the Geneva Bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are making the best argument for the intervention of God in translations across languages. You are asking us to follow men who you admit are ignorant. They did not know, you said. And you are finally right about something. You are asking us to follow them in their ignorance instead of God in his perfection. I quoted a passage in Isa 55 concerning God's thoughts and ways being so much higher than ours that we could never attain to it without his help. That passage was in the context of his words and how he has purposed through them to accomplish certain wonderful things. He has bragged much on the purity of his words.

You fellows have quoted no bible for your preaching on the insufficiency of scripture. You quote one another. You would have us to believe that God is so divorced from his words in the modern translations that we must rely on our own scholars to do the best they can and then you justify the continual translations in the English language by trying to get bible believers to admit that God is not perfect and that he dead sure is not concerned about the words through which his own testimony is presented to the world. He says just the opposite in passages like 1 Corinthians 2.



All the scores of English translations? Who is the final arbiter in the trying of these English translations? The publishers who stand to make the most money from them? The translation committee members? God? No, none of the above. It is the scholars, the worldly wise, who alone can tell us what the word of God really is. Your two statements above are just silly. You seem to be advocating for a priesthood

I see the devil all over these modern English translations. This is not the way God has presented himself in the scriptures I read and it is not his way to have scores of translations in the same language because he cannot get it right in a single one.

What essential doctrine and truth have the Nas/esv/Nkjv neglected or perverted then?

 

[JD731]

I expressed my own opinion and tools, but in no manner have I placed onlyism as restricting others.

Again this post is merely my own opinion.

Proper tool handling and experience with the tool capabilities allows one to move from apprenticeship, journeyman, to master craftsman.

As it is, the journey is not for the weak, uninterested, or complacent; but, with each experience, gain insight and experience.

Onlyism is for the weak, uninitiated, and manipulators who are basically afraid. They generally construct scaffolding of straw removing the authority of God to preserve and giving over to excess of personal authority.

To place an example before the readers, a familiar name of one, now long dead, is Peter Ruckman. He was even arrogant when he attended BJU and, when his popularity began to wain after his first divorce, grasp at straw to maintain his own camp followers. The same with Jack Hyles who, being covered over in the sins of the flesh, engaged much bluster to continue having camp followers.

Folks are free to choose from that offered, but ultimately must answer for proper handling of the tools they select and knowing both the strengths and weakness of those tools.

This is very good advice agedman. My first reaction to the description you have suggested for me in your comments would certainly be prideful hurt, but one should examine himself to see if he is in the faith. I think that is what you are saying. Right? Thank you for that. I will certainly take your comments under consideration seeing as how I have personally chosen to apply the scriptures authoritatively from the KJV.

I have heard that Peter Ruckman (I don't know him and have never read his stuff) said mean and accusatory things to those who did not agree with him, often describing them in less than flattering terms. I do not not want to be like that, do you?

 

[JD731]

What essential doctrine and truth have the Nas/esv/Nkjv neglected or perverted then?

Well, lets begin with the doctrine of the unicorns. But if you want to know them all we will probably have to wait until the judgement because I am sure I do not know them all.

But you will need to define the word essential as you are applying it here.

 

[JD731]

Where did I supposedly say what you suggest? Are you again putting words in my mouth that I did not say?

The actual Bible translations of which the KJV was a revision and the Bible translations in other languages which they consulted also have textual differences and have many differences in translation.

There were also differences in the actual varying original-language texts used and consulted by the KJV translators.

Perhaps there may be the same problems with your view as you assume about the views of others.

I put the quote in the comments.

 

[JD731]

Advocates of a KJV-only theory seem to be unaware of the extreme arrogance in their own human reasoning. KJV-only advocates do not seem to see how some of their assertions conflict with the NT doctrine of the priesthood of believers and with the doctrine of soul liberty.

How so?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, lets begin with the doctrine of the unicorns. But if you want to know them all we will probably have to wait until the judgement because I am sure I do not know them all.

But you will need to define the word essential as you are applying it here.

There are NO doctrines of the Christian faith denied or changed in modern versions such as those I listed!

 

[Conan]

Here are bible translators that claim that the manuscripts are perfect and they are the only

Okay, state which of the manuscripts, from which all translations come, is without error and I will be satisfied that you know what you are talking about. Here are bible translators that claim that the manuscripts are perfect and they are the only perfect words God has left us. That is what they claim Then they have at least 4 philosophical methods of translating them. The dynamic equivalence method requires at least a measure of private interpretation. The claim is that we must believe the manuscripts and then when they are translated it is obvious the translators did not believe them because thousands of the words are left out and doubt is cast on many others even after they read a statement from Jesus Christ, the son of God, who said in John 12 that he spoke only the words that the Father in heaven had given him to speak and he said this;

Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

He said this to the devil!

Then the devil quoted scripture to the Son of God, who inspired the scriptures, and used the philosophical method of dynamic equivalence in his quotation. look at it.

Mt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Psa 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

He omitted "in all thy ways."

I think your views are wrong.

How about all manuscripts and all printed editions. I don't think there are any on this earth that agrees with the KJV. The reformation Bibles sure don't. It's either a mistranslation or a printing error in the KJV.

Wycliffe
As the first gendrid of a bole is the feirnesse of hym; the hornes of an vnicorn ben the hornes of hym

Tyndale
his bewtye is as a firstborne oxe and his hornes as the hornes of an vnycorne

Coverdale
His bewtye is as a firstborne oxe, and his hornes are as the hornes of an Vnicorne

Matthews Bible
his beutye is as fyrsteborne oxe and hys hornes as the hornes of an vnycorne

Great Bible
his firstborne oxe hath be wtie, and his hornes are as the hornes of an vnycorne

Geneva Bible
His beautie shalbe like his first borne bullock, and his hornes as the hornes of an vnicorne

Bishops Bible
His first borne oxe hath beautie, and his hornes are as the hornes of an vnicorne

Douay Rheims
His beauty as of the firstling of a bullock, his horns as the horns of a rhinoceros

Did God cause any other Bibles on this earth to agree with the KJV at Deuteronomy 33:17? Mistranslation or printers error.

 

[JD731]

There are NO doctrines of the Christian faith denied or changed in modern versions such as those I listed!

How do you know this? You speak as if there is a unified consensus among Christians concerning what the bible teaches. How many Christian denominations are there and why are they divided? Answer. They are divided on doctrinal issues. I haven't looked up the data but it would not surprise me if the divisions into denominations and cults have not increased since introduction of this philosophy in the mid 1800's.

In Matthew 13, the chapter that has our Lord Jesus outlining this entire age in parables as if it were a sowing in the beginning and a harvest in the end, he predicts the exact thing that is happening before our eyes. He said concerning the parable of the tares and the wheat, that towards the harvest time he would send his angels to gather the tares into bundles to burn them, after he gathers his wheat into his barn. At least it says it in the KJV. In the parable of the mustard tree he shows the birds, always in scripture pictured as Satanic emissaries, as coming and roosting in the branches. Where ever birds roost they crap on everything.

Maybe it goes back farther when the seeds of this rebellion was sown by the Reformation where these ungodly Protestant denominations were formed. They seem to be the main denominations who are giving us most of these corrupt versions without end. Jesus said a tree will bear fruit after it's kind. A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit, he says. This is a corrupt tree.
It is also a corrupt philosophy but because of the gracious goodness of our Lord there is still time to escape. Thank God for his grace.

 

[JD731]

How about all manuscripts and all printed editions. I don't think there are any on this earth that agrees with the KJV. The reformation Bibles sure don't. It's either a mistranslated or a printing error in the KJV.

Majority rules, eh? How many times was the majority right in scripture? There is a lesson to be learned here.

 

[Conan]

At least it says it in the KJV. In the parable of the mustard tree he shows the birds, always in scripture pictured as Satanic emissaries, as coming and roosting in the branches. Where ever birds roost they crap on everything.

This is false.

 

[JD731]

This is false.

This is false.

 

[Conan]

Majority rules, eh? How many times was the majority right in scripture? There is a lesson to be learned here.

There is. All other editions of God's word I believe goes against the KJV at Deuteronomy 33:17. Not the majority, but all other editions of God's word. I believe it is all of the editions of God's word from the times before Christ up until now. If so it is a clear error in the KJV be it mistranslation or printers error. I could be wrong though. There could be some modern versions which agree with the KJV? If so that could prove me wrong. Do you know of any other Bible on this earth that agrees with the KJV here?

 

[Jerome]

Conan of course you are wrong. A cursory search at Bible Gateway finds plural forms of the animal employed in Biblica's French La Bible du Semeur and in the United Bibles Societies' Spanish Traducción en Lenguaje Actual.

 

[JD731]

There is. All other editions of God's word I believe goes against the KJV at Deuteronomy 33:17. Not the majority, but all other editions of God's word. I believe it is all of the editions of God's word from the times before Christ up until now. If so it is a clear error in the KJV be it mistranslation or printers error. I could be wrong though. There could be some modern versions which agree with the KJV? If so that could prove me wrong. Do you know of any other Bible on this earth that agrees with the KJV here?

m

No. I am a seeker of truth, not a seeker of error. That is why I study the KJV. I am fully convinced by my many years of reading and studying it and by the witness of the Spirit of Christ who lives in me that it is the word of God.

Most people who post on these forums are not stating a personal conviction concerning the scriptures that has developed over time as they study and pray but it is because of their associations. This would be true even of some KJV only people. It does not take long to distinguish between the two.

My purpose here is to defend what is true against relentless attack, not to spend my time searching out error. I have always heard that bankers are taught the best way to spot counterfeit currency is to learn the characteristics of the genuine. The counterfeit will then manifest itself by it’s differences. I spend very little time comparing translations.

 

[Logos1560]

That is why I study the KJV. I am fully convinced by my many years of reading and studying it and by the witness of the Spirit of Christ who lives in me that it is the word of God.

Are you attempting to make your personal experience the determiner of truth?

Are you suggesting that the witness of the Spirit of Christ in you makes you a perfect, infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Are you skipping over the fact that the KJV is a translation?

Do you claim that the KJV was given by inspiration of God?

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision are the word of God translated into English. Otherwise, it would be saying that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not the word of God. The KJV is more a revision of those earlier English Bibles than it was a direct new translation from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Without making any sound scriptural case for it, you seem to assume that the KJV is supposedly the word of God in some different sense than the pre-1611 English Bibles are.

The KJV is not the word of God that was given by direct inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

 

[JD731]

Are you attempting to make your personal experience the determiner of truth?

Are you suggesting that the witness of the Spirit of Christ in you makes you a perfect, infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Are you skipping over the fact that the KJV is a translation?

Do you claim that the KJV was given by inspiration of God?

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision are the word of God translated into English. Otherwise, it would be saying that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not the word of God. The KJV is more a revision of those earlier English Bibles than it was a direct new translation from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Without making any sound scriptural case for it, you seem to assume that the KJV is supposedly the word of God in some different sense than the pre-1611 English Bibles are.

The KJV is not the word of God that was given by direct inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The scriptures instructs me to go and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Tell the people who will listen of the glorious good news that God will save all those who will believe the promises God makes to them. Who is this God who makes such promises and is he able to do what he promises to do? He is the God of the bible. No one alive today has seen him. No one has had a vision of him. They have not dreamed dreams of him. He has not shown himself in the heavens. Whatever one can say for sure about this God must come from the written testimony that he has left us. It is the only thing that sinners have to prove him.

Sinners don't generally just pick up a bible and read about him and then believe it. Among the testimony of God in his book in Acts 8, a sinner was reading Isaiah 53 and God sent him a preacher who asked him if he understood what he was reading. His answer is instructive. He said how can I except some man guide me? Therefore, it takes faith and confidence in the written testimony of God to lead a sinner to salvation in Jesus Christ and it takes faith in the testimony of the preacher and God for the sinner to be saved.

Phillip, in Acts 8 began, God and Luke said, in the same scripture, Isaiah 53, to preach unto him Jesus, although the name Jesus does not show up in Isaiah 53. The description of the arm of the Lord, the sheep that was led to the slaughter, the Lamb who was dumb before his shearers, the one who made his grave among the wicked, the one who God confessed had satisfied his justice in that chapter matched the person who God said fulfilled all that for the sinners of the world and that person's name was Jesus the Christ of God..

Who told Phillip that? How could he be so confident? How could he preach that to others with such courage and conviction that it caused them to believe it too? It is because he had the Holy Ghost from God, the Spirit of Christ that was preaching that truth through him as he yielded to him and the Spirt who was in him knew it was Jesus in Isa 53.

How important is the true word of God for the faithful evangelist and bible teacher? It is as important to him as it is to the spirit who is guiding him into all truth. Jesus said in John 5, "sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." This is in the context of a prayer of the prophet Jesus Christ to his Father in heaven. This makes the word of God, from which we get the confirmation of our faith and upon which it is founded, a very important part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the personification of the word of God and is presented in the OT and the NT as the word of the LORD, Adonay Jehovah, the Lord GOD. In the beginning of this age John said he is the WORD. He was with God and he is God.

1 Corinthians 1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (the sanctifying truth personified)

God desires sinners to believe his words. He claims he will save everyone who will. I believe that. Now, you come along and claim you have a ministry of God to convince people that God has given the simple man no sure way of knowing what he said and are casting doubt upon it. You are quoting your scholars and telling us they are better teachers than the Spirit of God and a comparison of scores of English translation, all with different words, is better to know the mind of God than a single volume that claims to be his very words. You are teaching that it is a heresy for the simple man to believe he has the words of God.

You started this thread and as far as I can tell you have not quoted a single verse from any version of the bible. For someone who is interested in what God has to say, that is a tremendous oddity. You almost never quote God saying anything. You always quote others and sometimes they might have a God quote, or what you believe is a God quote. You did not even quote Duet 33:17, the subject of this thread. We are now registering about 80 comments and still no quotes from you.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it

Thy word [was] very pure; therefore thy servant loveth it.

Which of the above do you like the best?